The Department of Justice is trying to intimidate bar associations, which license and oversee lawyers, and legal experts are sounding the alarm.
Acting U.S. Attorney Todd Blanche "has been trying to intimidate state bars across the country and local bars," warned Adam Klasfeld, a legal journalist, in an episode of the Legal AF podcast. Blanche was hit with a bar complaint earlier this week for launching an investigation into Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
The DOJ, under Blanche's leadership, sued the D.C. Bar earlier this month and tried to strip state bars of the jurisdiction involving DOJ lawyers, Klasfeld said. The moves are part of a "campaign of intimidation," Klasfeld went on, worried that it could have a "chilling effect" on bars nationwide.
Klasfeld was speaking to Michael Klaw, the communications director for the Campaign for Accountability, the group that filed the bar complaint against Blanche. Klaw said the chilling effect is visible on bar associations.
"We can certainly say that we see a noticeable difference between how bars have been acting in the first year of the second Trump administration versus how they were acting previously," Klaw said. "There's sort of a bullying, chilling effect."
The intimidation started before Blanche took over the DOJ, Klaw explained. Under former U.S. Attorney Pam Bondi, the DOJ instituted a policy of "not cooperating with bar investigations," he said.
"They've only doubled down on that since," Klaw said. "Time will tell whether this is successful on their part to intimidate the bars further, but it's certainly concerning to see them trying."
House Oversight Committee Chair Rep. James Comer (R-KY) was apparently the only Republican lawmaker attending the interview with former Attorney General Pam Bondi on Friday, MS NOW reported.
Sources told MS NOW that the atmosphere in the room was tense as Bondi appeared frustrated over the questions during the closed-door, transcribed interview with lawmakers as they continued their investigation into late financier and convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM) commented that Republicans had skipped the Bondi interview — and called them out.
"I want to point out there's not a single Republican in the room besides the chairman [Comer]," Stansbury said, adding, "For a supposed group of individuals who care deeply about justice for the survivors, not a single one could be bothered to travel across the country today."
"It's sort of a curious fact of today's closed door transcribed interview, because the thing that set this all in motion was the fact that the Oversight Committee back in March had voted to subpoena Pam Bondi when she was still attorney general," MS NOW Congressional reporter Mychael Schnell told anchor Chris Jansing.
"And the reason why it was successful was because there were five Republicans who crossed ranks and joined that effort make putting it over the finish line, which was a stunning, stunning move considering the fact that President Trump, on a number of occasions has tried to push back on the Epstein files and the investigation overall, whether or not you know why they're not here today, as you mentioned, James Comer is here," Schnell said. "We did hear from him earlier. It's worth noting that currently Congress is out of session. They're on recess. So members are back home in their districts. Of course, that doesn't take away from the fact that they could have come into town for such an important interview. So certainly an interesting fact here as we go through the motions of this transcribed interview. But certainly Comer said that he was going to be asking Pam Bondi all the questions that the survivors had raised, including about redactions, withholding and Ghislaine Maxwell's prison sentence."
Bondi's comments had prompted questions over whether the committee would subpoena Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who at the time was Bondi's deputy, and current FBI Director Kash Patel, Jansing said.
But that could be difficult to do, said MS NOW Senior Legal Reporter Lisa Rubin, and Republicans could have deliberately chosen not to show up.
"Certainly it would be hard for the committee today to vote on a subpoena like that because they don't have the votes," Rubin explained.
"Chairman Comer would have to be the one to initiate that vote, but also authorize the subpoena," Rubin said. "And I think that this today, the transcribed interview was conveniently scheduled in a way that many Republicans would not be there, meaning they gave the Democrats the interview that they were seeking after having subpoenaed Pam Bondi. But they set it up at a time where she would not be subject to hard questions from members of her own party."
There could be more questioning to come for both Blanche and Patel, Rubin added.
"In terms of Todd Blanche and Kash Patel, those are absolutely people to whom these questions should be directed," Rubin said. "And I have to say this may be inconvenient for some of the Democrats, but it was absolutely predictable and intelligible, legally, that Pam Bondi would say that she could not discuss her conversations with the president. That is something that is protected by executive privilege."
During coverage of the ongoing House Oversight Committee meeting interview with Pam Bondi, The New York Times' Peter Baker claimed there are probably good reasons for the fired attorney general to place all the blame on the man who now sits in her office over the botched release of the Jeffrey Epstein files.
With MS NOW’s Ken Dilanian joking earlier, “Look, those of us in Washington may have heard the sound of a large bus driving over a large object about an hour ago. And that was Pam Bondi throwing her former deputy, Todd Blanche, now the acting attorney general, under that bus, proverbially.”
Baker was asked what he thinks is at play.
“She's demonstrating that she remains loyal to the president who fired her, pushed her out. But at the same time, not to the deputy that was foisted on her in the first place, who clearly, you know, she's willing to throw under the bus,” he told MS NOW host Ali Vitali.
He then added, “Now, that may be perfectly good politics in the sense that Todd Blanche is probably already so radioactive that there's no chance he could be confirmed by the Senate to the attorney general position in a permanent sense. That $1.8 billion fund for Trump's allies by itself probably makes him unconfirmable on top of many other things people might have concerns about. But, you know, she's not willing to, you know, break with the president. She is still in his orbit in that sense, which is fascinating.”
The Justice Department’s (DOJ) botched release of files related to Jeffrey Epstein was front and center Friday during ousted Attorney General Pam Bondi’s interview with the House Oversight Committee, during which, a DOJ attorney "intervened" to stop Bondi from answering a direct question about President Donald Trump, one Democratic lawmaker claimed.
Bondi agreed to appear for a closed-door interview with members of the Oversight Committee over the DOJ’s handling of Epstein-related files – around half of which remain unpublished, which critics have claimed to be unlawful. However, she previously defied a congressional subpoena to testify under oath. As such, she faces no legal risk for providing false statements.
Even so, Trump’s DOJ apparently felt compelled to stop her from answering certain questions about Trump, Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM), a member of the Oversight Committee, claimed just outside the interview room.
“She has been asked multiple times about the Trump administration, about her conversations with the president,” Stansbury said.
“When asked specifically about a conversation with Donald Trump, one of the DOJ attorneys intervened and said she did not have to answer the question because it was a voluntary interview, and said, quote, ‘we don’t even have to assert privilege,’ and, quote, ‘we refuse to provide answers.’”
Other Democratic members of the Oversight Committee similarly condemned Bondi’s performance. Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-AZ) called the interview a “ridiculous charade,” and Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-FL) referred to it as “disgusting.”
Stansbury also noted that other than Rep. James Comer (R-KY), the Oversight Committee chair, no other Republicans participated in the closed-door interview, sparking even more fury from the New Mexico Democrat.
“That means that the DOJ is intervening on behalf of Pam Bondi to stop her from answering questions about what happened in the cover-up in this case, and her conversations with Donald Trump,” Stansbury said.
“This is a cover-up! This will be remembered as the largest cover-up likely in American history, and it is clear that this interview is a smokescreen to try to show the American people that they are complying while they are not,” Stansbury added.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche's gushing comments about Trump have an ex-prosecutor sounding the alarm and suggesting it could land Blanche in legal trouble.
In early April, Blanche said he would tell Trump, "Thank you very much. I love you, sir," if the president passed him over for the permanent AG role and kicked him out of the White House.
Glenn Kirschner, a former prosecutor, said on the Jim Acosta Show on Tuesday that those comments could be a problem for Blanche.
"From this old prosecutor's perspective, he'll need to be criminally investigated beginning in January of 2029," Kirschner said, referring to when Trump's term is supposed to end. "The minute I heard him say ... 'Thank you, sir. I love you.' You can't make that up. And why would any self-respecting government official say that?"
Along with the ongoing case against former FBI Director James Comey, Kirschner sees plenty of evidence that Blanche "was willing to do anything and everything to try and keep his job," he said. Kirschner said Blanche is aggressively "abusing the rule of law and the constitutional rights of targets of Donald Trump's wrath."
Kirschner then pointed to the Richard Nixon administration and the criminal conviction of four dozen of his officials and associates.
"I'll bet they all felt untouchable. I'll bet they felt like, 'No way the rule of law is coming for us,'" Kirschner said. "What happened? Forty-eight of them were criminally convicted, and thirty of them went to prison. This is what awaits, I believe, Todd Blanche and the rest of Trump's cabinet."
Joe Rogan was stunned after news of President Donald Trump's newly created $1.8 billion slush fund and called the ordeal "crazy," The Daily Beast reported on Tuesday.
The longtime Trump ally spoke about it Monday on his "Joe Rogan Experience" podcast with comedian Tom Segura, discussing the $10 billion lawsuit settlement between Trump and the IRS and how the Department of Justice announced that the fund would compensate allies of the president who claim they were wrongly prosecuted under former President Joe Biden's administration, including Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol rioters.
Rogan took issue with the document signed by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche that forever bars the United States from pursuing any tax claims or other legal actions against the president, his family, his trusts, and his companies.
"That is so crazy," Rogan said. "Imagine like somebody accused you of murder, yeah, and turns out you weren’t guilty of that murder and then you sue them and you go, 'You can never prosecute me for murder again.' And then you just go straight Uday Hussein."
Hussein was the son of Saddam Hussein and an Iraqi politician. He "had a reputation for sadism and cruelty, and died in a gory siege under fire from U.S. forces in 2003," according to The Beast.
Rogan endorsed Trump in the 2024 presidential election and has since become a more vocal and "cautious" critic of the president during his second term.
Former IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel told The Beast that the president should be treated just like every other American citizen.
"This is an unprecedented remedy," Werfel said. "People expect the same tax rules and enforcement framework to apply to everybody."
Both Democrats and Republicans have criticized the slush fund, known as the taxpayer-funded “anti-weaponization” fund. It's led GOP lawmakers to openly challenge Trump.
A legal expert relished how Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche got a high-profile case thrown out because of his own words.
Glenn Kirschner spoke on Friday about the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case that was thrown out earlier in the day by U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw because it was deemed a "vindictive" prosecution.
"The judge made a special point talking about how Todd Blanche, this is going to be my characterization, said the vindictive part out loud," Kirschner said. "The phrase, 'hoisted on your own petard,' is what comes to mind."
Abrego Garcia is a Salvadoran immigrant deported by the Trump administration despite a court order blocking his removal. He successfully challenged his deportation in court multiple times. Kirschner found it "delicious" that Blanche made that easier.
"Todd Blanche seems to open his mouth only to change feet these days. He's always putting a foot in his mouth," Kirschner said. "Todd Blanche running his mouth is part of the downfall of the Trump administration's attempt to unlawfully and unconstitutionally go after Trump's perceived enemies."
Kirschner brought up a line from the judge's ruling, saying, "The evidence before this court sadly reflects an abuse of prosecuting power."
For Kirschner, "that will be sort of Todd Blanche's tagline: an abuse of prosecutorial power."
Judge Dismisses Abrego Garcia's criminal case: a conversation with Adam Klasfeld by Glenn Kirschner
A Republican strategist says that Trump is hurting politically right now and warned a GOP lawmaker who appeared with the president.
"This is a really terrible week for this Trump administration," Rina Shah said during an appearance on CNN. She added that Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) "should not have trumped" the president at a campaign event on Friday.
"Lawler has been confusing in the past many months," Shah explained. "By continuing to seem like he wants to be close to the White House," despite "his colleagues in the Senate...they're reading the room."
She brought up the fiery meeting between GOP senators and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, where they "really stood up" and chewed into him regarding the "anti-weaponization" fund, Shah said.
The midterm elections are six months away, and "it's time to get tough about what matters." The senators who ripped into Blanche "aren't in full revolt. They're just in midterm savior mode," Shah added.
"So Lawler, if he knew better, he would be doing that too," she explained. "He's employing a throw-it-all-at-the-wall strategy. He thinks that maybe Trump's charisma might win out with some folks, but again, the pocketbook issues."
She tried to send the message to Lawler that "your constituents hate endless war," but Trump is "making it all about himself."
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) spilled the tea on the red-hot meeting between Republican senators and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche earlier in the week.
"There were fireworks at an epic level," Cruz said on a Friday episode of his podcast. "I got to say it's one of the roughest meetings that I've seen in my entire time in the Senate. There are a lot of Republican senators who were just p---ed."
The Thursday meeting took place to discuss Trump's proposed $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization" fund. During and shortly after the meeting, reporters shared that GOP senators poured outrage on Blanche.
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), fresh off a primary defeat to a Trump-endorsed candidate, and retiring Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) in particular were "p---ed" and "angry," Cruz said.
"Fiery does not begin to cut it," Cruz went on. "The senators I mentioned, they were p---ed, but almost every Republican senator was there."
He estimated that "probably 45 senators" were in the room, "blasting the attorney general, and they were p---ed," Cruz repeated.
"There were multiple senators who were yelling at the Attorney General, and it was not calm," Cruz described. "It was yelling, and they were saying, 'This feels like self-dealing.'"
The "anti-weaponization" fund was created as part of a settlement of Trump's lawsuit against the IRS, an agency he controls as president. Blanche's primary talking point in the meeting was that the Trump family isn't eligible for payments through the fund.
Cruz said that "unhappy" senators demanded to know if January 6 rioters would get payments.
"Todd Blanche was adamant, and he said, not just no, but 'hell no,'" Cruz recalled. "And he said this, not just to one senator. This was to three or five or 10. I mean, it was over and over again. He said, 'No, no, no, nobody who committed an act of violence, nobody who assaulted law enforcement.'"
Although Cruz admitted that Blanche is "a good guy," he said, "I got to tell you, people were really worked up," and repeated, "It was angry. It was hot. People were p---ed."
President Donald Trump's move to push out a longtime Republican ally could backfire — because he now needs his help, according to reports on Friday.
Burgess Everett, Semafor congressional bureau chief, pointed out that as Tulsi Gabbard announced her resignation as director of national intelligence, it has left three openings for the Trump administration to fill all while he navigates a more tense relationship with GOP lawmakers in the economic fallout over the Iran war, the White House ballroom funding and his controversial $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund.
"Upshot from Gabbard resigning: Trump now has three Cabinet vacancies (Labor, AG) while he's basically at war with Senate Republicans," Everett wrote in a post on X.
"And confirming a new DNI will require the votes of Sens. Collins and ... Cornyn in Senate Intelligence Committee, whom Trump just snubbed," Everett added.
Interim leaders have been tapped to run the Labor Department and Justice Department until Trump names new nominees to the roles.
"Acting attorney general Todd Blanche faces a tough road to confirmation if Trump nominates him to a permanent role," according to a Semafor report.
"Any Gabbard replacement would have to get approval from the Senate Intelligence Committee, whose members include moderate Maine Sen. Susan Collins, who has voted against several Trump nominees and priorities, as well as Texas Sen. John Cornyn, recently snubbed by Trump in his primary. Gabbard’s successor would need both of their votes — and confirming her was a challenge to begin with at the peak of Trump’s power," Semafor reported.
